I think I summed it up well in something I've been working on writing the past few days.... (It's only part of it....too much and it'd have to be it's own topic)
But I am in no position to judge; not even close. And I have no reason to. But that, in and of itself, is exactly where my own problem with religion lies. I can't find belief, because I can't justify it, that way. And, when I say justify, I mean, "to provide an acceptable explanation," and not necessarily, "to claim to be just, or right" (we'll get to that definition momentarily). So should we strive to justify our belief systems rationally, and with intellect, logic, and reason? If you're a Christian, the answer is yes. You should be able to provide an explanation for your beliefs (1 Peter 3:15), by examining them carefully (1 Thess. 5:21) and to do so with logic and reason (Isaiah 1:18). So this sort of rational thinking is not looked down upon by doctrine, and thus there is no excuse whatsoever for you to just say "'In the beginning, God...' is good enough for me." As I said in "Nihil est, quod Deus efficere non possit," if you are not able to justify your belief, or simply choose not to, then you may as well say something equally logical like, "a wizard did it," or not believe in anything at all.
So, for the sake of argument, let's say that you set out to justify your beliefs. The first thing you do is, you start looking at arguments for, and against, the possibility that your beliefs may be the right ones. You try to do this in a rational, logically sound manner, only to find that all you're doing is weighing feasible arguments for said belief against the ones that are not logical. Then you'd weigh the equally feasible arguments against said belief against the ones that are not logical. Then you'd attempt to balance the two on some sort of grand scale of belief with arguments on both sides to try to determine which side is, if nothing else, 'less incorrect.' Even then, you may "end up going down one road, looking for the justification of 'one thing,' only to find that it's upheld by 'this thing,' so you search for the justification for that." But when would it end? You would never get to a point where you can stop, take a step back and say, "Yes. This is the end, I've found a conclusion; this is meaningful." And that's where you discover that the meaning you were looking for all along; the belief; is not justified and will never be. It can't be. Thus, you've effectively done nothing of any significance or use at all, and your efforts were in vain! That idea would put a little instability into your belief, wouldn't it? It would really drive home the point that your belief is just that: belief, and that is not necessarily defined by what is actually true, but really it's only what you, to be blunt, want to be true.
You find out that truth isn't an intrinsic quality of your belief in God, nor can you pretend it is. There are only two things keeping you believing in God, then. One, is that you just like to believe in God and that's that. Okay, sure; it's credulous, naϊve, and asinine (to be optimistic), but it is a reason. If it's not that, however, the next option is that you just might not be able to stop believing in God. You're addicted, or otherwise incapable of entertaining the notion that God doesn't exist. I won't attempt to argue against the intelligence of that, because that may not be entirely a self-conscious decision. But in either case, your belief is only a matter of practicality for your life. It becomes a matter of whatever helps you to sleep at night, helps you to define and exemplify ethics and / or morality, keeps you within a certain circle of friends that you fear you would lose otherwise, or whatever is otherwise helpful to you alone, even if you're not fully aware of it. The only difference between the two is your disposition, or your habitual bias. Do you feel liberated by those parameters, or enslaved by them? Does the belief in God frighten you (you believe simply because you don't want to be punished), or comfort you? In either case, it isn't justifiable as a standard of truth, because absolute truth simply doesn't factor into it. It's like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Especially when that round hole is on the side of the square peg itself. In other words, it is at best a point of view from (or through) which to see the world, not the world itself.